Top 6 Legal Current Affairs: October 2025

The Supreme Court of India has been quite active lately, giving important directions and judgments that touch everyday life — from road safety and stray dog control to criminal cases and constitutional traditions. Each order shows how the Court keeps a close eye on public safety, justice, and accountability.

In this month’s roundup, we’ve covered six major updates — including who’s set to become the next Chief Justice of India, the Court’s directions on helmets and lane discipline, and its stance on stray dog rules. These stories show how the Court’s work goes far beyond the courtroom — it directly affects how laws are followed across the country. Let's begin.

#1 Mere Presence at Crime Scene ≠ Member of Unlawful Assembly

Case Name: Zainul v. The State of Bihar (2025)

What Happened?

1. The case stemmed from a 1988 land dispute in Katihar, Bihar, over “parcha” land where a violent mob attack occurred.

2. Around 400–500 people allegedly armed with weapons attacked members of the Mahto community who were harvesting crops.

3. Two individuals died and five others were injured in the clash.

4. An FIR was registered naming 72 accused under Sections 148, 149, 307, and 302 of the IPC.

5. The Trial Court convicted 21 of 24 accused persons; the Patna High Court upheld most of these convictions.

6. The accused appealed before the Supreme Court arguing that they were merely present at the spot and did not share the common object of the mob.

What did the Court say?

• The Supreme Court examined whether “mere presence” at the crime scene can attract liability under Section 149 IPC.
• The Court ruled that to convict under Section 149, prosecution must prove that the accused shared the unlawful assembly’s common object — mere physical presence is insufficient.
• The Court stressed that participation or conduct showing intentional association with the unlawful act is essential to establish guilt.
• The Supreme Court acquitted the accused against whom no active role or intent could be proven, holding that collective liability cannot be imposed mechanical

#2 Direct Recruitment of Judicial Officers as District Judges

Case Name: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Ors. (2025)

What Happened?

1. The case dealt with direct recruitment of District Judges under Article 233 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner, Rejanish K.V., was a practising advocate with over 7 years of bar experience before joining as a Munsiff (Judicial Officer).

3. He applied for the post of District Judge through the Bar quota, raising the question of whether a judicial officer could still be considered eligible.

4. Earlier judgments like Dheeraj Mor (2020) had held that only practising advocates, not in service, could apply under the bar quota.

5. The issue was referred to a Constitution Bench to clarify whether in-service judicial officers could compete under Article 233(2).

What did the Court say?

• The Court held that judicial officers who have seven years’ combined experience as advocates and judicial officers are eligible for direct recruitment as District Judges.

• The eligibility is to be assessed at the time of application, not at the time of appointment.

• The Court emphasized maintaining a level playing field, fixing the minimum age of 35 years on the date of application for all candidates.

• It overruled earlier rulings, including Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, which had restricted in-service officers from applying under the bar quota.

• The judgment was made prospective, ensuring that previous appointments or recruitments are not disturbed and directed High Courts and State Governments to amend recruitment rules within three months.

#3 SC Allows Green Crackers in NCR for Diwali

Case Name: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2025)

What Happened?

1. The case concerned the long-standing issue of air pollution in the National Capital Region (NCR) during Diwali due to firecracker use.

2. A previous Supreme Court order dated April 3, 2025 had imposed a blanket ban on all firecrackers, including green ones, throughout the year in NCR.

3. Ahead of Diwali 2025, various parties including the Central Government, NCR States, and firecracker manufacturers sought relaxation of this ban.

4. The petitioners requested permission to sell and use “green crackers”, which are designed to emit less pollution compared to conventional ones.

What did the Court say?

• The Supreme Court balanced two competing interests — the right to clean air under Article 21 and the right to celebrate festivals and earn livelihoods.

• Relying on the precedent of Arjun Gopal v. Union of India (2018), the Court allowed regulated use of green crackers subject to strict conditions.

• It permitted sale of only NEERI-approved green crackers from 18–20 October 2025, strictly at designated and licensed locations.

• Bursting of firecrackers was allowed only during limited time slots — 6:00–7:00 AM and 8:00–10:00 PM on the day before and on Diwali.

• The Court imposed strict monitoring: only crackers with QR codes, registration with PESO/NEERI, no e-commerce sales, and no banned chemicals like barium.

• The relaxation was declared temporary and experimental, subject to AQI monitoring from 14–25 October 2025 by pollution control boards, with future policy to depend on results.

Want to understand how the Supreme Court connects clean air, festival regulations, and personal liberty? Learn how these ideas evolved under Article 21 of the Constitution, which defines the right to life in its broadest form.

#4 Madras HC: Crypto Is Property

Case Name: Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs Pvt Ltd & Ors. (2025)

What Happened?

1. The applicant, Rhutikumari, invested around ₹1.98 lakh in January 2024 to purchase 3,532.30 XRP tokens through WazirX, operated by Zanmai Labs Pvt Ltd.

2. In July 2024, WazirX was hit by a major cyber-attack, leading to a loss of approximately USD 230 million worth of Ethereum-based tokens.

3. Following the hack, user withdrawals were frozen, including the applicant’s holdings.

4. Rhutikumari approached the Madras High Court seeking interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to safeguard her frozen crypto assets.

5. Zanmai Labs argued that the dispute was subject to Singapore arbitration and that the applicant’s crypto holdings were not held in trust by the platform.

What did the Court say?

• The Court examined whether cryptocurrency qualifies as “property” under Indian law, capable of being owned, transferred, or held in trust.
• Relying on precedents like Ahmed G.H. Ariff and Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar, the Court held that property is not limited to physical or tangible assets.
• It ruled that cryptocurrency, though intangible, has characteristics of property—it can be owned, possessed beneficially, and held in trust.
• The Court held that since the applicant’s assets were located in India, Indian courts had jurisdiction to grant interim relief despite a foreign arbitration clause.
• The Madras High Court granted interim protection, directing Zanmai Labs to furnish a bank guarantee or deposit ₹9.56 lakh in escrow to secure the value of the applicant’s crypto assets until arbitration concludes.

Confused about whether crypto trading is legal or banned? The detailed guide on the Legality of Cryptocurrency in India decodes every policy update, court order, and financial implication.

#5 SC Issues Road-Safety Mandate: Helmets, Lane Discipline, Lights

Case Name: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. (2025)

What Happened?

1. The case originated from a 2012 PIL filed by Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, an orthopaedic surgeon, highlighting India’s alarming road fatality rate and weak safety enforcement.

2. The Court noted that in 2023, India recorded 1,72,890 road deaths, including 35,000 pedestrian deaths and 54,000 two-wheeler deaths due to lack of helmet use.

3. Major concerns raised included non-use of helmets, wrong-lane driving, unsafe overtaking, dazzling LED headlights, unauthorised strobe lights/hooters, and poor pedestrian facilities.

What did the Court say?

• The Court treated road safety as a constitutional concern under Article 21, linking it to the right to life and safety.
• It directed strict enforcement of helmet laws across all States and Union Territories through e-surveillance and public compliance reporting.
• For lane discipline and wrong-lane driving, States were asked to use automated cameras, dynamic lighting, and textured lane markings, and maintain violation dashboards.
• The Court ordered regulation of vehicle lighting—to cap luminance and beam angles, conduct fitness/PUC checks, and completely ban unauthorised red-blue strobe lights and hooters.
• It mandated market crackdowns, penalties, and public awareness drives to ensure compliance by manufacturers, dealers, and vehicle owners.
• For pedestrian safety, the Court directed road-owning authorities in 50 major cities and the NHAI to audit and fix footpaths, crossings, and encroachments within fixed timelines.
• It ordered all States and UTs to frame and notify Rules under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of the Motor Vehicles Act within six months, and scheduled a compliance review after seven months.

To understand the legal backbone behind India’s traffic and road safety framework, read the detailed guide on the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, explaining how it governs licensing, penalties, and accident liability.

#6 CJI Gavai Recommends Justice Surya Kant as 53rd CJI

1. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai is set to retire on 23 November 2025, upon attaining the age of 65.

2. As per the established seniority convention, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court is recommended as the next CJI if found fit for the position.

3. On 27 October 2025, CJI Gavai formally recommended Justice Surya Kant as his successor.

4. Justice Surya Kant currently serves as the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court after CJI Gavai.

5. The recommendation was sent to the Central Government through the Ministry of Law and Justice.

6. Once the government processes the recommendation, the President of India will formally appoint Justice Surya Kant as the 53rd CJI.

7. Justice Surya Kant will assume office on 24 November 2025, a day after CJI Gavai’s retirement.

8. The President acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, as per Article 74 of the Constitution.

9. The appointment will be made through a Presidential Warrant, sealed and signed, as required under Article 124.

Conclusion

These six updates together highlight the Supreme Court’s expanding role — not just as an interpreter of the Constitution, but as a guardian of governance and public welfare. Whether it’s pushing States towards compliance, enforcing long-ignored safety laws, or maintaining the discipline of constitutional conventions, the Court’s actions reaffirm its position as a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework.

As these cases progress and new directions unfold, they will continue to influence how law meets everyday life — from the roads we drive on to the justice system we rely upon.

Also Read:

• Top 7 Legal Current Affairs: September 2025
• Top 9 Legal Current Affairs: August 2025
• Top 10 Legal Current Affairs: July 2025
• Top 7 Legal Current Affairs: June 2025
• Top 15 Legal Current Affairs: April 2025